## Facts

- Alfred University was a private institution governed by a self-perpetuating board of private trustees.
- Within Alfred, the New York State College of Ceramics operated as a New York “statutory/contract college” within the State University of New York (SUNY) structure.
- New York funded the College of Ceramics’ direct expenses and reimbursed salaries of key officials connected to its administration; SUNY trustees retained statutory supervisory authority.
- On May 11, 1968 (Parents Day), students and some faculty demonstrated during an ROTC ceremony, advocating scholarships for Black students, curriculum changes, ending compulsory ROTC, and opposition to the Vietnam War.
- The demonstration was nonviolent but obstructed aspects of the ceremony by blocking spectators’ views and positioning demonstrators in the path of participants.
- Alfred maintained a written demonstration policy requiring advance notice/approval and prohibiting obstruction of university functions; demonstrators did not provide required notice.
- The Dean of Students directed demonstrators to move; some refused and were suspended, with a hearing announced for the next day regarding possible expulsion.
- Seven students were suspended; three were students in the College of Ceramics.
- The suspended students sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking reinstatement and declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging First Amendment violations.
- The district court dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, concluding Alfred’s discipline was private conduct, not state action.

## Issues

1. Whether Alfred University’s discipline constituted state action for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, particularly as applied to students enrolled in the New York State College of Ceramics.
2. If state action existed, whether enforcing the demonstration policy and suspending students for obstructing the ROTC ceremony violated the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that administration of the New York State College of Ceramics was attributable to the state; § 1983 jurisdiction existed for Ceramics students’ claims.
- The court held there was no state action as to students enrolled only in Alfred’s purely private components; their § 1983 claims were properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- On the merits, the court rejected the Ceramics students’ First Amendment claim, holding the notice and anti-obstruction rules were reasonable and content-neutral, and the suspensions were constitutionally permissible.
- The court reversed in part (as to jurisdiction for Ceramics students) but ultimately denied injunctive relief on the constitutional claim; dismissal stood for non-Ceramics students.

## Legal Principles

- State action is determined by a fact-specific assessment of the relationship between the state and the challenged conduct, including funding, statutory status, and governmental control.
- A private university operating a state statutory/contract college within a public university system may act under color of state law with respect to that college, even if the broader institution remains private.
- The existence of a public component within a private institution does not, by itself, convert all university actions into state action.
- When state action exists, a university may enforce content-neutral, reasonable time, place, and manner limits on demonstrations, including notice requirements and restrictions on obstructing scheduled events.
- Disciplining students for violating such rules, after refusing administrative directions intended to prevent disruption, does not necessarily violate the First Amendment.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit treated the New York State College of Ceramics as effectively public for § 1983 purposes while preserving Alfred University’s private status for its other divisions, and it upheld the university’s enforcement of content-neutral anti-disruption protest rules against a First Amendment challenge.


Powe v. Miles, 407 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1968)